What Was The 2008 Recession Caused By?

The Great Recession, which ran from December 2007 to June 2009, was one of the worst economic downturns in US history.
The economic crisis was precipitated by the collapse of the housing market, which was fueled by low interest rates, cheap lending, poor regulation, and hazardous subprime mortgages.
New financial laws and an aggressive Federal Reserve are two of the Great Recession’s legacies.

For dummies, what triggered the 2008 recession?

The Federal Reserve hiked the fed funds rate in 2004 at the same time that the interest rates on these new mortgages were adjusted. As supply outpaced demand, housing prices began to decrease in 2007. Homeowners who couldn’t afford the payments but couldn’t sell their home were imprisoned. When derivatives’ values plummeted, banks stopped lending to one another. As a result, the financial crisis erupted, resulting in the Great Recession.

Who is responsible for the 2008 Great Recession?

The Lenders are the main perpetrators. The mortgage originators and lenders bear the brunt of the blame. That’s because they’re the ones that started the difficulties in the first place. After all, it was the lenders who made loans to persons with bad credit and a high chance of default. 7 This is why it happened.

What triggered the financial crisis of 2008?

Years of ultra-low interest rates and lax lending rules drove a home price bubble in the United States and internationally, sowing the seeds of the financial crisis. It began with with intentions, as it always does.

What happened in the financial crisis of 2008?

The crisis caused the Great Recession, which was the worst worldwide downturn since the Great Depression at the time. It was followed by the European debt crisis, which began with a deficit in Greece in late 2009, and the 20082011 Icelandic financial crisis, which saw all three of Iceland’s major banks fail and was the country’s largest economic collapse in history, proportionate to its size of GDP. It was one of the world’s five worst financial crises, with the global economy losing more than $2 trillion as a result. The proportion of home mortgage debt to GDP in the United States climbed from 46 percent in the 1990s to 73 percent in 2008, hitting $10.5 trillion. As home values climbed, a surge in cash out refinancings supported an increase in consumption that could no longer be sustained when home prices fell. Many financial institutions had investments whose value was based on home mortgages, such as mortgage-backed securities or credit derivatives intended to protect them against failure, and these investments had lost a large amount of value. From January 2007 to September 2009, the International Monetary Fund calculated that large US and European banks lost more than $1 trillion in toxic assets and bad loans.

In late 2008 and early 2009, stock and commodities prices plummeted due to a lack of investor trust in bank soundness and a reduction in credit availability. The crisis quickly grew into a global economic shock, resulting in the bankruptcy of major banks. Credit tightened and foreign trade fell during this time, causing economies around the world to stall. Evictions and foreclosures were common as housing markets weakened and unemployment rose. A number of businesses have failed. Household wealth in the United States decreased $11 trillion from its peak of $61.4 trillion in the second quarter of 2007, to $59.4 trillion by the end of the first quarter of 2009, leading in a drop in spending and ultimately a drop in corporate investment. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the United States’ real GDP fell by 8.4% from the previous quarter. In October 2009, the unemployment rate in the United States reached 11.0 percent, the highest since 1983 and about twice the pre-crisis rate. The average number of hours worked per week fell to 33, the lowest since the government began keeping track in 1964.

The economic crisis began in the United States and quickly spread throughout the world. Between 2000 and 2007, the United States accounted for more than a third of global consumption growth, and the rest of the world relied on the American consumer for demand. Corporate and institutional investors around the world owned toxic securities. Credit default swaps and other derivatives have also enhanced the interconnectedness of huge financial organizations. The de-leveraging of financial institutions, which occurred as assets were sold to pay back liabilities that could not be refinanced in frozen credit markets, intensified the solvency crisis and reduced foreign trade. Trade, commodity pricing, investment, and remittances sent by migrant workers all contributed to lower growth rates in emerging countries (example: Armenia). States with shaky political systems anticipated that, as a result of the crisis, investors from Western countries would withdraw their funds.

Governments and central banks, including the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of England, provided then-unprecedented trillions of dollars in bailouts and stimulus, including expansive fiscal and monetary policy, to offset the decline in consumption and lending capacity, avoid a further collapse, encourage lending, restore faith in the vital commercial paper markets, and avoid a repeat of the Great Recession. For a major sector of the economy, central banks shifted from being the “lender of last resort” to becoming the “lender of only resort.” The Fed was sometimes referred to as the “buyer of last resort.” These central banks bought government debt and distressed private assets from banks for $2.5 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2008. This was the world’s largest liquidity injection into the credit market, as well as the world’s largest monetary policy action. Following a strategy pioneered by the United Kingdom’s 2008 bank bailout package, governments across Europe and the United States guaranteed bank debt and generated capital for their national banking systems, ultimately purchasing $1.5 trillion in newly issued preferred stock in major banks. To combat the liquidity trap, the Federal Reserve produced large sums of new money at the time.

Trillions of dollars in loans, asset acquisitions, guarantees, and direct spending were used to bail out the financial system. The bailouts were accompanied by significant controversy, such as the AIG bonus payments scandal, which led to the development of a range of “decision making frameworks” to better balance opposing policy objectives during times of financial crisis. On the day that Royal Bank of Scotland was bailed out, Alistair Darling, the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the crisis, stated in 2018 that Britain came within hours of “a breakdown of law and order.”

Instead of funding more domestic loans, several banks diverted part of the stimulus funds to more profitable ventures such as developing markets and foreign currency investments.

The DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed in the United States in July 2010 with the goal of “promoting financial stability in the United States.” Globally, the Basel III capital and liquidity criteria have been adopted. Since the 2008 financial crisis, consumer authorities in the United States have increased their oversight of credit card and mortgage lenders in attempt to prevent the anticompetitive activities that contributed to the catastrophe.

What happened during the financial crisis of 2008?

In September 2008, Lehman Brothers, one of the world’s largest financial organizations, went bankrupt in a matter of weeks; the value of Britain’s largest corporations was wiped out in a single day; and cash ATMs were rumored to be running out.

When did it begin?

Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy on September 15, 2008. This is widely regarded as the official start of the economic crisis. There would be no bailout, according to then-President George W. Bush. “Lehman Brothers, one of the world’s oldest, wealthiest, and most powerful investment banks, was not too big to fail,” the Telegraph reports.

What caused the 2008 financial crash?

The financial crisis of 2008 has deep roots, but it wasn’t until September 2008 that the full extent of its consequences became clear to the rest of the globe.

According to Scott Newton, emeritus professor of modern British and international history at the University of Cardiff, the immediate trigger was a combination of speculative activity in financial markets, with a particular focus on property transactions particularly in the United States and Western Europe and the availability of cheap credit.

“A massive amount of money was borrowed to fund what appeared to be a one-way bet on rising property values.” However, the boom was short-lived since, starting around 2005, the gap between income and debt began to expand. This was brought about by growing energy prices on worldwide markets, which resulted in a rise in global inflation.

“Borrowers were squeezed as a result of this trend, with many struggling to repay their mortgages. Property prices have now begun to decrease, causing the value of many banking institutions’ holdings to plummet. The banking sectors of the United States and the United Kingdom were on the verge of collapsing and had to be rescued by government action.”

“Excessive financial liberalisation, backed by a drop in regulation, from the late twentieth century was underpinned by trust in the efficiency of markets,” says Martin Daunton, emeritus professor of economic history at the University of Cambridge.

Where did the crisis start?

“The crash first hit the United States’ banking and financial system, with spillovers throughout Europe,” Daunton adds. “Another crisis emerged here, this time involving sovereign debt, as a result of the eurozone’s defective design, which allowed nations like Greece to borrow on similar conditions to Germany in the expectation that the eurozone would bail out the debtors.

“When the crisis struck, the European Central Bank declined to reschedule or mutualize debt, instead offering a bailout package – on the condition that the afflicted countries implement austerity policies.”

Was the 2008 financial crisis predicted?

Ann Pettifor, a UK-based author and economist, projected an Anglo-American debt-deflationary disaster in 2003 as editor of The Real World Economic Outlook. Following that, The Coming First World Debt Crisis (2006), which became a best-seller following the global financial crisis, was published.

“The crash caught economists and observers off guard since most of them were brought up to regard the free market order as the only workable economic model available,” Newton adds. The demise of the Soviet Union and China’s conversion to capitalism, as well as financial advancements, reinforced this conviction.”

Was the 2008 financial crisis unusual in being so sudden and so unexpected?

“There was a smug notion that crises were a thing of the past, and that there was a ‘great moderation’ – the idea that macroeconomic volatility had diminished over the previous 20 or so years,” says Daunton.

“Inflation and output fluctuation had decreased to half of what it had been in the 1980s, reducing economic uncertainty for individuals and businesses and stabilizing employment.

“In 2004, Ben Bernanke, a Federal Reserve governor who served as chairman from 2006 to 2014, believed that a variety of structural improvements had improved economies’ ability to absorb shocks, and that macroeconomic policy particularly monetary policy had improved inflation control significantly.

“Bernanke did not take into account the financial sector’s instability when congratulating himself on the Fed’s successful management of monetary policy (and nor were most of his fellow economists). Those who believe that an economy is intrinsically prone to shocks, on the other hand, could see the dangers.”

Newton also mentions the 2008 financial crisis “The property crash of the late 1980s and the currency crises of the late 1990s were both more abrupt than the two prior catastrophes of the post-1979 era. This is largely due to the central role that major capitalist governments’ banks play. These institutions lend significant sums of money to one another, as well as to governments, enterprises, and individuals.

“Given the advent of 24-hour and computerized trading, as well as continuous financial sector deregulation, a big financial crisis in capitalist centers as large as the United States and the United Kingdom was bound to spread quickly throughout global markets and banking systems. It was also unavoidable that monetary flows would suddenly stop flowing.”

How closely did the events of 2008 mirror previous economic crises, such as the Wall Street Crash of 1929?

According to Newton, there are certain parallels with 1929 “The most prominent of these are irresponsible speculation, credit reliance, and extremely unequal wealth distribution.

“The Wall Street Crash, on the other hand, spread more slowly over the world than its predecessor in 200708. Currency and banking crises erupted in Europe, Australia, and Latin America, but not until the 1930s or even later. Bank failures occurred in the United States in 193031, but the big banking crisis did not come until late 1932 and early 1933.”

Dr. Linda Yueh, an Oxford University and London Business School economist, adds, “Every crisis is unique, but this one resembled the Great Crash of 1929 in several ways. Both stocks in 1929 and housing in 2008 show the perils of having too much debt in asset markets.”

Daunton draws a distinction between the two crises, saying: “Overconfidence followed by collapse is a common pattern in crises, but the ones in 1929 and 2008 were marked by different fault lines and tensions. In the 1930s, the state was much smaller, which limited its ability to act, and international financial flows were negligible.

“There were also monetary policy discrepancies. Britain and America acquired monetary policy sovereignty by quitting the gold standard in 1931 and 1933. The Germans and the French, on the other hand, stuck to gold, which slowed their comeback.

“In 1929, the postwar settlement impeded international cooperation: Britain resented her debt to the US, while Germany despised having to pay war reparations. Meanwhile, primary producers have been impacted hard by the drop in food and raw material prices, as well as Europe’s move toward self-sufficiency.”

How did politicians and policymakers try to ‘solve’ the 2008 financial crisis?

According to Newton, policymakers initially responded well. “Governments did not employ public spending cuts to reduce debt, following the theories of John Maynard Keynes. Instead, there were small national reflations, which were intended to keep economic activity and employment going while also replenishing bank and corporate balance sheets.

“These packages were complemented by a significant increase in the IMF’s resources to help countries with severe deficits and offset pressures on them to cut back, which may lead to a trade downturn. These actions, taken together, averted a significant worldwide output and employment decline.

“Outside of the United States, these tactics had been largely abandoned in favor of ‘austerity,’ which entails drastic cuts in government spending. Austerity slowed national and international growth, particularly in the United Kingdom and the eurozone. It did not, however, cause a downturn, thanks in large part to China’s huge investment, which consumed 45 percent more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the United States had used in the whole twentieth century.”

Daunton goes on to say: “Quantitative easing was successful in preventing the crisis from being as severe as it was during the Great Depression. The World Trade Organization’s international institutions also played a role in averting a trade war. However, historians may point to frustrations that occurred as a result of the decision to bail out the banking sector, as well as the impact of austerity on the quality of life of residents.”

What were the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis?

In the short term, a massive bailout governments injecting billions into failing banks prevented the financial system from collapsing completely. The crash’s long-term consequences were enormous: lower wages, austerity, and severe political instability. We’re still dealing with the fallout ten years later.

Who profited the most from the financial crisis of 2008?

Warren Buffett declared in an op-ed piece in the New York Times in October 2008 that he was buying American stocks during the equity downturn brought on by the credit crisis. “Be scared when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful,” he says, explaining why he buys when there is blood on the streets.

During the credit crisis, Mr. Buffett was particularly adept. His purchases included $5 billion in perpetual preferred shares in Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), which earned him a 10% interest rate and contained warrants to buy more Goldman shares. Goldman also had the option of repurchasing the securities at a 10% premium, which it recently revealed. He did the same with General Electric (NYSE:GE), purchasing $3 billion in perpetual preferred stock with a 10% interest rate and a three-year redemption option at a 10% premium. He also bought billions of dollars in convertible preferred stock in Swiss Re and Dow Chemical (NYSE:DOW), which all needed financing to get through the credit crisis. As a result, he has amassed billions of dollars while guiding these and other American businesses through a challenging moment. (Learn how he moved from selling soft drinks to acquiring businesses and amassing billions of dollars.) Warren Buffett: The Road to Riches is a good place to start.)

How did we get back on our feet after the Great Recession?

The Great Recession lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, making it the longest downturn since World War II. The Great Recession was particularly painful in various ways, despite its short duration. From its peak in 2007Q4 to its bottom in 2009Q2, real gross domestic product (GDP) plummeted 4.3 percent, the greatest drop in the postwar era (based on data as of October 2013). The unemployment rate grew from 5% in December 2007 to 9.5 percent in June 2009, before peaking at 10% in October 2009.

The financial repercussions of the Great Recession were also disproportionate: home prices plummeted 30% on average from their peak in mid-2006 to mid-2009, while the S&P 500 index dropped 57% from its peak in October 2007 to its trough in March 2009. The net worth of US individuals and charity organizations dropped from around $69 trillion in 2007 to around $55 trillion in 2009.

As the financial crisis and recession worsened, worldwide policies aimed at reviving economic growth were enacted. Like many other countries, the United States enacted economic stimulus measures that included a variety of government expenditures and tax cuts. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 were two of these projects.

The Federal Reserve’s response to the financial crisis varied over time and included a variety of unconventional approaches. Initially, the Federal Reserve used “conventional” policy actions by lowering the federal funds rate from 5.25 percent in September 2007 to a range of 0-0.25 percent in December 2008, with the majority of the drop taking place between January and March 2008 and September and December 2008. The significant drop in those periods represented a significant downgrading in the economic outlook, as well as increasing downside risks to output and inflation (including the risk of deflation).

By December 2008, the federal funds rate had reached its effective lower bound, and the FOMC had begun to utilize its policy statement to provide future guidance for the rate. The phrasing mentioned keeping the rate at historically low levels “for some time” and later “for an extended period” (Board of Governors 2008). (Board of Governors 2009a). The goal of this guidance was to provide monetary stimulus through lowering the term structure of interest rates, raising inflation expectations (or lowering the likelihood of deflation), and lowering real interest rates. With the sluggish and shaky recovery from the Great Recession, the forward guidance was tightened by adding more explicit conditionality on specific economic variables such as inflation “low rates of resource utilization, stable inflation expectations, and tame inflation trends” (Board of Governors 2009b). Following that, in August 2011, the explicit calendar guidance of “At least through mid-2013, the federal funds rate will remain at exceptionally low levels,” followed by economic-threshold-based guidance for raising the funds rate from its zero lower bound, with the thresholds based on the unemployment rate and inflationary conditions (Board of Governors 2012). This forward guidance is an extension of the Federal Reserve’s conventional approach of influencing the funds rate’s current and future direction.

The Fed pursued two more types of policy in addition to forward guidance “During the Great Recession, unorthodox” policy initiatives were taken. Credit easing programs, as explored in more detail in “Federal Reserve Credit Programs During the Meltdown,” were one set of unorthodox policies that aimed to facilitate credit flows and lower credit costs.

The large scale asset purchase (LSAP) programs were another set of non-traditional policies. The asset purchases were done with the federal funds rate near zero to help lower longer-term public and private borrowing rates. The Federal Reserve said in November 2008 that it would buy US agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and debt issued by housing-related US government agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan banks). 1 The asset selection was made in part to lower the cost and increase the availability of finance for home purchases. These purchases aided the housing market, which was at the heart of the crisis and recession, as well as improving broader financial conditions. The Fed initially planned to acquire up to $500 billion in agency MBS and $100 billion in agency debt, with the program being expanded in March 2009 and finished in 2010. The FOMC also announced a $300 billion program to buy longer-term Treasury securities in March 2009, which was completed in October 2009, just after the Great Recession ended, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Federal Reserve purchased approximately $1.75 trillion of longer-term assets under these programs and their expansions (commonly known as QE1), with the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet increasing by slightly less because some securities on the balance sheet were maturing at the same time.

However, real GDP is only a little over 4.5 percent above its prior peak as of this writing in 2013, and the jobless rate remains at 7.3 percent. With the federal funds rate at zero and the current recovery slow and sluggish, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy plan has evolved in an attempt to stimulate the economy and meet its statutory mandate. The Fed has continued to change its communication policies and implement more LSAP programs since the end of the Great Recession, including a $600 billion Treasuries-only purchase program in 2010-11 (often known as QE2) and an outcome-based purchase program that began in September 2012. (in addition, there was a maturity extension program in 2011-12 where the Fed sold shorter-maturity Treasury securities and purchased longer-term Treasuries). Furthermore, the increasing attention on financial stability and regulatory reform, the economic consequences of the European sovereign debt crisis, and the restricted prospects for global growth in 2013 and 2014 reflect how the Great Recession’s fallout is still being felt today.

How long did it take to recover from the financial crisis of 2008?

When the decade-long expansion in US housing market activity peaked in 2006, the Great Moderation came to an end, and residential development began to decline. Losses on mortgage-related financial assets began to burden global financial markets in 2007, and the US economy entered a recession in December 2007. Several prominent financial firms were in financial difficulties that year, and several financial markets were undergoing substantial upheaval. The Federal Reserve responded by providing liquidity and support through a variety of measures aimed at improving the functioning of financial markets and institutions and, as a result, limiting the damage to the US economy. 1 Nonetheless, the economic downturn deteriorated in the fall of 2008, eventually becoming severe and long enough to be dubbed “the Great Recession.” While the US economy reached bottom in the middle of 2009, the recovery in the years that followed was exceptionally slow in certain ways. In response to the severity of the downturn and the slow pace of recovery that followed, the Federal Reserve provided unprecedented monetary accommodation. Furthermore, the financial crisis prompted a slew of important banking and financial regulation reforms, as well as congressional legislation that had a substantial impact on the Federal Reserve.

Rise and Fall of the Housing Market

Following a long period of expansion in US house building, home prices, and housing loans, the recession and crisis struck. This boom began in the 1990s and accelerated in the mid-2000s, continuing unabated through the 2001 recession. Between 1998 and 2006, average home prices in the United States more than doubled, the largest increase in US history, with even bigger advances in other locations. During this time, home ownership increased from 64 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in 2005, while residential investment increased from around 4.5 percent of US GDP to nearly 6.5 percent. Employment in housing-related sectors contributed for almost 40% of net private sector job creation between 2001 and 2005.

The development of the housing market was accompanied by an increase in household mortgage borrowing in the United States. Household debt in the United States increased from 61 percent of GDP in 1998 to 97 percent in 2006. The rise in home mortgage debt appears to have been fueled by a number of causes. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) maintained a low federal funds rate after the 2001 recession, and some observers believe that by keeping interest rates low for a “long period” and only gradually increasing them after 2004, the Federal Reserve contributed to the expansion of housing market activity (Taylor 2007). Other researchers, on the other hand, believe that such variables can only explain for a small part of the rise in housing activity (Bernanke 2010). Furthermore, historically low interest rates may have been influenced by significant savings accumulations in some developing market economies, which acted to keep interest rates low globally (Bernanke 2005). Others attribute the surge in borrowing to the expansion of the mortgage-backed securities market. Borrowers who were deemed a bad credit risk in the past, maybe due to a poor credit history or an unwillingness to make a big down payment, found it difficult to get mortgages. However, during the early and mid-2000s, lenders offered high-risk, or “subprime,” mortgages, which were bundled into securities. As a result, there was a significant increase in access to housing financing, which helped to drive the ensuing surge in demand that drove up home prices across the country.

Effects on the Financial Sector

The extent to which home prices might eventually fall became a significant question for the pricing of mortgage-related securities after they peaked in early 2007, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, because large declines in home prices were viewed as likely to lead to an increase in mortgage defaults and higher losses to holders of such securities. Large, nationwide drops in home prices were uncommon in US historical data, but the run-up in home prices was unique in terms of magnitude and extent. Between the first quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2011, property values declined by more than a fifth on average across the country. As financial market participants faced significant uncertainty regarding the frequency of losses on mortgage-related assets, this drop in home values contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-08. Money market investors became concerned of subprime mortgage exposures in August 2007, putting pressure on certain financial markets, particularly the market for asset-backed commercial paper (Covitz, Liang, and Suarez 2009). The investment bank Bear Stearns was bought by JPMorgan Chase with the help of the Federal Reserve in the spring of 2008. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy in September, and the Federal Reserve aided AIG, a significant insurance and financial services firm, the next day. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation were all approached by Citigroup and Bank of America for assistance.

The Federal Reserve’s assistance to specific financial firms was hardly the only instance of central bank credit expansion in reaction to the crisis. The Federal Reserve also launched a slew of new lending programs to help a variety of financial institutions and markets. A credit facility for “primary dealers,” the broker-dealers that act as counterparties to the Fed’s open market operations, as well as lending programs for money market mutual funds and the commercial paper market, were among them. The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which was launched in collaboration with the US Department of Treasury, was aimed to relieve credit conditions for families and enterprises by offering credit to US holders of high-quality asset-backed securities.

To avoid an increase in bank reserves that would drive the federal funds rate below its objective as banks attempted to lend out their excess reserves, the Federal Reserve initially funded the expansion of Federal Reserve credit by selling Treasury securities. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, got the right to pay banks interest on their excess reserves in October 2008. This encouraged banks to keep their reserves rather than lending them out, reducing the need for the Federal Reserve to offset its increased lending with asset reductions.2

Effects on the Broader Economy

The housing industry was at the forefront of not only the financial crisis, but also the broader economic downturn. Residential construction jobs peaked in 2006, as did residential investment. The total economy peaked in December 2007, the start of the recession, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The drop in general economic activity was slow at first, but it accelerated in the fall of 2008 when financial market stress reached a peak. The US GDP plummeted by 4.3 percent from peak to trough, making this the greatest recession since World War II. It was also the most time-consuming, spanning eighteen months. From less than 5% to 10%, the jobless rate has more than doubled.

The FOMC cut its federal funds rate objective from 4.5 percent at the end of 2007 to 2 percent at the start of September 2008 in response to worsening economic conditions. The FOMC hastened its interest rate decreases as the financial crisis and economic contraction worsened in the fall of 2008, bringing the rate to its effective floor a target range of 0 to 25 basis points by the end of the year. The Federal Reserve also launched the first of several large-scale asset purchase (LSAP) programs in November 2008, purchasing mortgage-backed assets and longer-term Treasury securities. These purchases were made with the goal of lowering long-term interest rates and improving financial conditions in general, hence boosting economic activity (Bernanke 2012).

Although the recession ended in June 2009, the economy remained poor. Economic growth was relatively mild in the first four years of the recovery, averaging around 2%, and unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, remained at historically high levels. In the face of this sustained weakness, the Federal Reserve kept the federal funds rate goal at an unusually low level and looked for new measures to provide extra monetary accommodation. Additional LSAP programs, often known as quantitative easing, or QE, were among them. In its public pronouncements, the FOMC began conveying its goals for future policy settings more fully, including the situations in which very low interest rates were likely to be appropriate. For example, the committee stated in December 2012 that exceptionally low interest rates would likely remain appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remained above a threshold of 6.5 percent and inflation remained no more than a half percentage point above the committee’s longer-run goal of 2 percent. This “forward guidance” technique was meant to persuade the public that interest rates would remain low at least until specific economic conditions were met, exerting downward pressure on longer-term rates.

Effects on Financial Regulation

When the financial market upheaval calmed, the focus naturally shifted to financial sector changes, including supervision and regulation, in order to avoid such events in the future. To lessen the risk of financial difficulty, a number of solutions have been proposed or implemented. The amount of needed capital for traditional banks has increased significantly, with bigger increases for so-called “systemically essential” institutions (Bank for International Settlements 2011a;2011b). For the first time, liquidity criteria will legally limit the amount of maturity transformation that banks can perform (Bank for International Settlements 2013). As conditions worsen, regular stress testing will help both banks and regulators recognize risks and will require banks to spend earnings to create capital rather than pay dividends (Board of Governors 2011).

New provisions for the treatment of large financial institutions were included in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, for example, has the authority to classify unconventional credit intermediaries as “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” (SIFIs), putting them under Federal Reserve supervision. The act also established the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), which authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to wind down specific institutions if their failure would pose a significant risk to the financial system. Another section of the legislation mandates that large financial institutions develop “living wills,” which are detailed plans outlining how the institution could be resolved under US bankruptcy law without endangering the financial system or requiring government assistance.

The financial crisis of 2008 and the accompanying recession, like the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Inflation of the 1970s, are important areas of research for economists and policymakers. While it may be years before the causes and ramifications of these events are fully known, the attempt to unravel them provides a valuable opportunity for the Federal Reserve and other agencies to acquire lessons that can be used to shape future policy.

What were three of the Great Recession’s effects?

This RFP has now been closed. The general rationale for the 30 project wins made in 2011 through early 2012 can be found in the original RFP outlined below.

The United States is now two years past the official end of the Great Recession, which lasted the longest and deepest since the 1930s. Although GDP and the stock market have risen since the recession ended in June 2009, the social and economic consequences of the downturn continue to ripple across the US economy. According to labor market data, more than 14 million Americans are unemployed, with 6.3 million of them out of work for more than six months. Another 11.3 million people are working less than they would like either part-time or looking for work but not finding it. Job growth is encouraging but sluggish, and at current rates of growth, reestablishing the pre-recession unemployment rate of 5% could take a decade or longer. Although the unprecedented number of home foreclosures experienced during the recession and its immediate aftermath has lessened, the housing market remains stagnant, with home prices hitting new lows in the first quarter of 2011. State and local budgets have seen huge gaps between revenues and expenditures as a result of the economic downturn, and stock market losses have exposed unfunded pension plans across the country. To attain balanced budgets, governments at all levels will have to undertake a mix of discretionary cuts and higher taxes, as predicted by the long-term repercussions of this recession. Public sector job losses have canceled out 40% of private sector employment increases in the two-year recovery, and government workforces are set to be under pressure for some time to come.

Given the likelihood of continued slow growth, high unemployment, low home values, and severe government fiscal limitations, the Russell Sage Foundation has opted to fund a series of studies on the social and economic consequences of the Great Recession. Long-term economic stagnation will most likely change American institutions and significantly impair many Americans’ life chances. We’re looking for studies that look at these effects across a broad spectrum of social and economic life, including, but not limited to, effects on individual aspirations and optimism about the future; health and mental health; family formation and stability, as well as children’s well-being; the viability of communities, particularly those hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis; the performance of the educational system at all levels; the incidence of crime and the performance of the criminal justice system. The Appendix demonstrates the types of topics that the Foundation is concerned about in each of these social and economic spheres. These are examples of the types of challenges the Foundation is interested in solving, although they are not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive.

In general, the Foundation will consider funding for a variety of projects, including:

Long-term studies on the effects of the Great Recession over the next three to five years. As a result, the effects of the fiscal crisis on state budgets, for example, may take some time to manifest. A comparison of the decisions governments make in balancing their budgets, as well as the implications of those choices, may not be significant for several years after the current crisis has ended. In another area, the consequences of the recession on families may not become apparent until after families have exhausted their resources in dealing with unstable work or housing, and if there are lasting repercussions on children, these may take even longer to manifest.
Analytic research that look at the long-term repercussions of the Great Recession across a variety of social and economic realms. An examination of how the recession affects underprivileged adolescents, for example, could look into the probable link between local variation in unemployment, school dropout, and criminal involvement. Alternatively, a study of older Americans’ labor market participation might look into the consequences of changes in pension wealth and the early receipt of Social Security benefits after a job loss.
Innovative investigations of the Great Recession’s deeper, more subtle consequences on psychological attitudes and social norms. Will the exceptionally high rates of long-term unemployment that have characterized this recession and its aftermath, for example, result in long-term scarring and decreased aspirations? Will high rates of overdue debt and “underwater” mortgages impair financial responsibility in general and undermine default norms? Or will the need to deleverage lead to a more conservative and cautious approach to household financial decisions in the United States? To assess the subjective impact of changed financial conditions, studies of these subjective issues may require a creative combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
Studies of how the Great Recession has affected American institutions, particularly in reaction to economic and other challenges that have arisen during the crisis and its aftermath. Universities, for example, have faced severe budget restrictions as a result of state budget cuts or private endowment losses at a time when student financial aid needs are rising. What has been the impact of universities’ responses to these pressures? To establish generalizations about institutional change, studies of institutional adaptation of topics like these may rely on case studies of specific institutions or the collecting of administrative data across institutions.

In general, we’re looking for creative research projects that go beyond simple trend analysis to look at unintended consequences of the Great Recession. Such study might use comparisons of present conditions with what is known about the results of previous recessions to make testable predictions about the current slump’s likely effects. We expect many of the funded initiatives to employ publicly available data sets, but we also understand that valid assessments of predictions regarding the effects of the Great Recession may require conducting new waves of past surveys or replicating data from other sources that give pre-recession baselines. We are happy to evaluate ideas for restricted data acquisition or collection in such instances. The Foundation’s funding will be limited to research help, data analysis expenditures, and limited release time for analyzing and writing up results in all other circumstances. We anticipate that all working papers and research briefs from projects financed under this initiative will be published (non-exclusively) on the RSF website.

The second round of funding for this endeavor is now underway. After the first round, we sponsored ten initiatives in nine of the appendix’s domains (a description of projects funded in the first round can be found here). We will consider projects from all domains in this round, but we are particularly interested in projects that address the following topics that were not addressed in the first round: changes in attitudes and norms caused by the economic downturn, effects on communities particularly hard hit by foreclosures and/or unemployment, changes in the incidence of crime linked to recessionary conditions, and effects of the fiscal crisis on state and local budgets. We’re also interested in study on the labor market’s performance in the United States throughout this extended era of high unemployment. Although there are no restrictions on the quantity of funding requests that will be considered, cost/benefit analysis will be a major factor in the evaluation of all projects. For your information, prizes accepted in the first round typically ranged from $75,000 to $250,000 for project periods ranging from one to four years.

We ask all academics interested in being a part of this program to send us a letter of inquiry of no more than three single-spaced pages explaining the research topic on the effects of the Great Recession that you would want to do. Your letter should explain and estimate the research expenditures involved, as well as outline and motivate the hypothesis concerning the effects of the Great Recession that you are interested in exploring. It should also specify out the empirical work required and the data sources to be used.

All letters of enquiry will be reviewed by the Foundation’s Advisory Committee, and detailed proposals will be solicited for the initiatives that appear to be the most promising.

Over the last decade, poverty in the suburbs has soared by more than a third. Although poverty rates in the inner city are still greater, the gap is closing. Earlier downturns mainly evaded the effects of suburban areas, but not this time.

What happens when a community’s unemployment rate and foreclosure rate are both high? What effect will it have on housing stock, home values, fiscal capacity, out-migration, and more ephemeral issues such as social capital and social efficacy?
What impact has the recession had on the poor’s regional distribution and concentration?
How would a decrease in residential mobility influence a community’s social infrastructure?

From less than 3% of disposable personal income in 2005-2007 to nearly 6% of disposable income in 2010, the personal savings rate has increased. Furthermore, the total quantity of outstanding consumer credit has decreased for the first time since 1940 as a result of the present crisis.

What has the recession’s overall impact been on personal finances, consumer spending, and consumer confidence?
How did households cut back on their consumption? Are these solutions viable in the event that revenues do not recover?
Have people lowered or raised their savings and retirement contributions? To stay afloat, have families taken out loans against their current investment and retirement accounts? What are the ramifications?
Are these patterns indicating a fundamental shift in consumer and financial behavior?

For the better part of the last decade, crime rates in the United States have remained steady or even decreased marginally. According to some research, those tendencies may be in peril. While the general crime rate in New York City stays steady, the most current statistics shows that the murder rate has increased by 15% over the previous year.

Will crime rates that have been declining or constant in the long run continue in the same path or change?
With fewer resources and higher demands, how well will police, courts, and prison institutions be able to function?
Will states employ early release procedures to reduce the number of people incarcerated and their costs? Is it likely that caseloads for probation and parole will vary, and if so, how will this affect technical violation rates?
What will happen if a larger number of incarcerated people are released into economically challenged communities? What will happen to those people, their families, and their communities?

Families are likely to be affected in a wide range of ways. Job losses and unemployment, one of the most apparent characteristics of the recession, have been linked to higher stress, poorer health outcomes, decreases in children’s academic achievement and educational attainment, marriage age delays, and changes in household structure. According to recent statistics, the number of multigenerational homes increased by 12% between 2006 and 2010.

What impact has it had on marriage, divorce, cohabitation, fertility, and family structure? Has this had a greater impact on some groups than others?
What have been the ramifications for home labor division? Are fathers more likely than mothers to get laid off? Is it true that mothers work more when their fathers work less?
What impact has this had on young adult children? Are more people staying at home longer because of poor career prospects? Do they need more financial and social assistance?
What has been the impact on family function, particularly the quality of parents’ relationships, parent-child connections, and parenting?
What impact has this had on children’s immediate results, such as academic performance, behavior, and delinquency, as well as their long-term life prospects?

States faced overall budget shortfalls of nearly $300 billion between 2009 and 2012 due to a drop in revenue and higher demand for state services. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) brought temporary relief, but it has finally come to an end.

What policy adjustments have states implemented to overcome substantial budget deficits, given that nearly all states are suffering significant budget gaps? What are the distributional effects of policy changes at the state level?
How will governments allocate the more constrained resources associated with diminishing tax receipts, given that health and prisons have been the fastest rising parts of state budgets over the last several decades? Which states are most likely to enact tax increases rather than spending cuts, and what effect will this have on the state’s economy?
The financial crisis has brought to light the underfunding of pension systems across the country. What are the chances that states will follow through on promised benefits? What effect will it have on state budgets?

Thirty-five states reduced education budgets totalling roughly $8 billion in K-12 and higher education in 2010, and 31 states are seeking more cutbacks in 2011.

What impact do budget cuts have on the delivery of public K-12 education? What impact has graduation rates, class sizes, school closures, and teacher employment and turnover had?
What has happened to the quality of public higher education at all levels, from four-year universities to community colleges?
Has there been a rise in the demand for a college education? Has it changed as a result of the family’s socioeconomic condition or the demography of the students?
What has changed in terms of the net cost of a college education, and what are the implications for students from various socioeconomic backgrounds?

Between 2006 and 2009, the number of home foreclosure filings grew from from 1.2 million to over 4 million per year, with black and Hispanic areas being disproportionately affected. Home losses of this magnitude and concentration are likely to cause more community upheaval and deterioration. Home ownership is also one of the most common means of accumulating wealth in the United States, meaning more financial insecurity for millions of Americans in the short and long term.

Which people and communities have been the most affected by foreclosures? What have been the ramifications for both those who have lost their homes and the localities that have seen the highest rates of home loss?
Have the losses in wealth caused by home foreclosures been allocated differently across different groups?
Have housing policies aimed at reducing home foreclosures been successful? Who has benefited the most?

Job loss is a major source of stress, and it has been linked to a variety of health effects, including an increased risk of heart attack and stroke, diabetes, arthritis, and psychiatric issues, as well as increased melancholy, anxiety, and sleep loss.

What kinds of health and mental-health changes can be ascribed to the Great Recession’s economic uncertainty and its aftermath?
Has there been a psychological shift in the general public’s aspirations, optimism for the future, and expectations for performance and upward mobility, particularly among the young?
What are the health ramifications in neighborhoods that have been impacted especially hard by the recession?
What are the anticipated ramifications of health-care and mental-health service cuts?

As the recession has set in, the number of economic migrants crossing the Mexican border into the United States has dramatically decreased, and internal migration patterns may have transformed as typical employment possibilities for migrants have decreased.

What are the current trends in immigration and internal migration? What will the ramifications be for immigrant communities?
What has been the impact of the collapse of the building industry on internal migration? Is there a link between changes in other industries and changes in internal migration?
How has extended economic suffering and uncertainty influenced Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants, immigration, and the immigration debate?
Are the lasting consequences of the recession affecting return migration patterns?

The official poverty rate rose from 13.2% in 2008 to 14.3% in 2009, with roughly 4 million more people living in poverty than the previous year. Since 1969, nearly every recession has resulted in considerable rises in poverty rates, with the consequences disproportionately affecting children.

What impact has the recession had on the income and wealth of people at various levels of the income distribution? Which individuals and groups have experienced the most transformation? Which assets (for example, retirement assets, property, and investments) have been most sensitive to the downturn if diverse vehicles for wealth generation have been disproportionately impacted?
Has the rate of poverty changed, and who is more likely to slip into or stay in poverty?
Is the greater concentration of incomes at the top of the income distribution a result of the recession?
Has the gradual increase in economic inequality that has marked the United States since the 1970s been aggravated, reduced, or remained unchanged?

A lengthy period of high unemployment, typified by historically high long-term unemployment rates, is expected to have far-reaching implications for the operation of the US labor market, as well as the lives of the unemployed, their families and communities, and the institutions that support them.

How bad are the ramifications of long-term unemployment? Who are the people who are most affected? What policies and programs work best to re-employ long-term unemployed people?
Is the size of the recession a sign of a massive reorganization of the US labor market? To what extent are structural mismatches between skill demand and supply, rather than weak demand, the causes of long-term unemployment?
What geographical areas and localities have the highest levels of unemployment, and why? What are their chances of getting back on their feet?

During the Great Recession, American politics was extremely turbulent, with rising populist fury directed at incumbents blamed for the crisis, significant electoral swings, and new forms of political organizing and fundraising.

In the aftermath of the recession, how are political attitudes, party affiliation, and political involvement changing?
What role do business and government play in producing the problem and resolving it, according to Americans?

State and municipal pension liabilities are anticipated to be close to $4 trillion, while private pension account balances are down approximately $800 billion from pre-recession levels, notwithstanding the stock market recovery.

What effect do pension losses have on pensioners’ projected retirement income? Which groups have been hurt the hardest?
What impact does the loss of pensions and jobs have on older Americans’ retirement decisions? Is there a shift in the distribution of retirement age based on income or education?

Approximately 46% of the 14.6 million unemployed people have been jobless for 27 weeks or longer, and 31% have been jobless for 52 weeks or longer.

How well did the social safety net in the United States perform during the recession and the subsequent period of high unemployment? How has the recession affected the need for emergency and safety-net services? How well have different programs (such as TANF, SSI, and SNAP) responded to increased demand?
Have community nonprofits been able to address any gaps that exist? Is it possible that the impact of the recession on such NGOs has reduced their ability to respond to rising need?
In a high-unemployment environment, what happens to welfare claimants whose time-limited benefits expire?
What was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s impact? What will happen to state welfare programs now that the ARRA is no longer in effect?